Sk. Amir Vs State of Odisha

SR of accused Sk. Rehemat is back with a report of his death. Hence, the case is abated against the accused Sk. Rehemat. SR of accused Sk. Amir is back with personal service. On calls none appeared on behalf of said accused. Hence, issue NBW/A against said accused. No step is taken on behalf of accused Sepruddin. On calls none appeared on behalf of accused. Hence, issue NBW/A against said accused. Put up on 05.04.25 for production.

¶15

Sd/-illegible JMFC(C), Balasore”

¶16

CRLMC No.1819 of 2026

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

2. It needs to be stated here that looking at the grievance of the petitioner and the ramification of the impugned order, the present CRLMC stands disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

3. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arabinda Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the present matter and perused the record.

¶20

4. A plain glance of the impugned order reveals that on the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner, he was found absent on repeated calls and, accordingly, NBWA was issued against the petitioner. Section 355 of BNSS confers wide discretion on the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused even on the date fixed for holding inquiry or trial, but issuance of NBWA against accused is not mandatory, even he is not present on the date fixed for the aforesaid purposes and it is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of

¶21

CRLMC No.1819 of 2026

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

the accused and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence and he may at any subsequent stage of the proceeding directs the personal attendance of such accused. Besides, Section 482(3) of BNSS provides that if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that accused person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section-1 to Section 482 of BNSS. In the present case, the accused petitioner was on bail being granted to him on 08.05.2018 and the petitioner has availed such bail by furnishing the bail bonds, however, the impugned order does not disclose as to what was the necessity to issue NBWA against the petitioner. In a situation like this, the Magistrate or the concerned Court may either issue notice to the bailer(s) or issue BW against the accused person, who has not appeared before it after receiving the summon/notice, but instead of resorting to said procedure, the learned JMFC(C), Balasore has straight away issued NBWA against the petitioner. Liberty of a person cannot be

¶24

CRLMC No.1819 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

¶25

taken away without proper procedure or it should not be dealt with lightly because custody brings lot of harassment and inconvenience to such persons deprived of liberty. Besides, the impugned order does not reveal any compelling reason to issue NBWA. It is also found from the order dated 01.03.2025 that the co-accused Sk. Sepuruddin was present and filed a surrender memo, but he was never taken into custody, because his bail petition which was filed was not pressed. Law is very clear that bail once granted should continue till it is cancelled or order granting bail is setaside.

¶26

5. Besides, the impugned order does not reveal about issuance of notice to the bailer(s). In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the ramification of the impugned order and to secure the ends of the justice and to give effect to the order of the Court, this Court considers that the impugned order does not stands to the legal scrutiny and is liable to be quashed.

¶27

CRLMC No.1819 of 2026

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

6. In the result, the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 qua the petitioner is, hereby, quashed and the petitioner is allowed to continue his previous bail, but he has to regularize the proceeding by appearing before the Court on the next date fixed for it.

¶30

(G. Satapathy) Vacation Judge

¶31

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9^th day of June, 2026/Subhasmita

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jun-2026 22:55:54 CRLMC No.1819 of 2026 Page 5 of 5

Sk. Amir v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Amir v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biranchi Kumar Nayak @ B.K.Nayak Vs Republic of India (Cbi)

Arjun Nayak Vs State of Odisha (Cbi)

Nimain Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha (Cbi)

Sulochana Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Isak Naik Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mandal Vs State of Odisha